I don't know who wrote the answer to the query on New Skete, but I can assure you that what he says is quite wrong, and, indeed, damaging to Orthodoxy. The images of Dorothy Day, Mother Theresa and other non-Orthodox people referred to simply should not be there.

Not to mention the claim that "New Skete also expresses one aspect of Orthodox ecclesiology that is often forgotten: that in spite of the schism, the Church of Rome remained 'the Church in Rome'" really flies in the face of Orthodox ecclesiology, it is not an expression of it.

Logged

He spoke it as kindly and heartily as could be; as if a man dashed a gallon of cold water in your broth and never doubted you'd like it all the better.

Imagine that there hadn't ever been an apparition in Mexico; but, it just so happens that an Orthodox iconographer created this icon, would you have an issue with it being in an Orthodox church?

Yes. I would have an issue.

Most icons of the Theotokos depict her with the Child Jesus, or in an event that leads to our Salvation - the Entrance into the Temple, the Presentation of Christ (St. Symeon), the Nativity, etc. In an icon that does not depict an event, the Virgin is usually holding the Christ Child, except for the Oranta or Pokrov.

In all icons, she is always pointing us towards Christ and His Salvation.

This image of a woman standing on the clouds, with dark skin and looking somewhere off to the bottom right...has no meaning whatsoever. She's not imploring, she's not advising, she's not teaching, she's definitely not pointing to Christ....

It's a pretty painting, of a pretty lady, in pretty robes. That's all it is.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

This image of a woman standing on the clouds, with dark skin and looking somewhere off to the bottom right...has no meaning whatsoever. She's not imploring, she's not advising, she's not teaching, she's definitely not pointing to Christ....

It's a pretty painting, of a pretty lady, in pretty robes. That's all it is.

This image of a woman standing on the clouds, with dark skin and looking somewhere off to the bottom right...has no meaning whatsoever. She's not imploring, she's not advising, she's not teaching, she's definitely not pointing to Christ....

It's a pretty painting, of a pretty lady, in pretty robes. That's all it is.

The painting has plenty of meaning! It the very reason why millions of native Mexicans became Catholic Christians. A native Mexican would immediately be able to read the symbolisms involved in the image.

There are plenty of books and other resource materials that explain in detail the symbols found in the image. Please read them before making such an unsupportable statement.

Don't the mexicans, mix there pagan Goddess worship with the Vigin Mary or they see no difference , Like in Haiti Where Voodu is mixed with catholic saints ..Catholics did a great Job there converting ...Stop Chasing after These new Questionable apparitions That Bring strange Revalation and you interduce them in your Faith belief ,,How is orthodoxy ever going to unite with catholicisim with all this strange doctrine Thats become part of your faith even promoted by your popes ...

You really have drifted far from orthodoxy I pray we never unite ,until The roman church Cleans its house and throws all these new revelation into the dust bin,,and returns back to the ancient faith once delived unto salvation...God save us all...

The EP is just a bishop with a special place of honor. Whatever he does is not representative of Orthodoxy as a whole, nor are we expected to "follow his lead" by any means. It's unfortunate that many in the general public see him as our "representative" whereas there is only one such representative, that is Christ through his Church.

Most icons of the Theotokos depict her with the Child Jesus, or in an event that leads to our Salvation - the Entrance into the Temple, the Presentation of Christ (St. Symeon), the Nativity, etc. In an icon that does not depict an event, the Virgin is usually holding the Christ Child, except for the Oranta or Pokrov.

In all icons, she is always pointing us towards Christ and His Salvation.

This image of a woman standing on the clouds, with dark skin and looking somewhere off to the bottom right...has no meaning whatsoever. She's not imploring, she's not advising, she's not teaching, she's definitely not pointing to Christ....

It's a pretty painting, of a pretty lady, in pretty robes. That's all it is.

In Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady is pregnant with Jesus. So, yes Jesus is there.

Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

This image of a woman standing on the clouds, with dark skin and looking somewhere off to the bottom right...has no meaning whatsoever. She's not imploring, she's not advising, she's not teaching, she's definitely not pointing to Christ....

It's a pretty painting, of a pretty lady, in pretty robes. That's all it is.

The painting has plenty of meaning! It the very reason why millions of native Mexicans became Catholic Christians. A native Mexican would immediately be able to read the symbolisms involved in the image.

There are plenty of books and other resource materials that explain in detail the symbols found in the image. Please read them before making such an unsupportable statement.

Yes, the image is pretty, and full of meaning!

Athanasios asked "would you have an issue with it being in an Orthodox church?"

Therefore, I do not have to "support" my statement. He asked for an opinion and I gave it.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

Don't the mexicans, mix there pagan Goddess worship with the Vigin Mary or they see no difference , Like in Haiti Where Voodu is mixed with catholic saints ..Catholics did a great Job there converting ...

The problem is that's the exact same argument many Protestants would use against not only Catholics but us Orthodox as well. I don't think it's wise to take plays out of the Protestant anti-Catholic playbook. There are plenty of reasons Orthodoxy does not accept these apparitions without using the whole "merging goddess worship" argument invented by Protestants. I mean, if it's true for them, then historically it would be true of us as well. (it's obviously not true, but veneration, and in fact sometimes excess veneration (IMO) of the the Theotokos goes back to before the Great Schism)

Some would just as easily say the exact same thing about us, and some Protestants have said that in the merging of Paganism and Christianity "those Orthodox are WORSE than the Catholics."

Quote

Stop Chasing after These new Questionable apparitions That Bring strange Revalation and you interduce them in your Faith belief

That's the biggest issue I have, that what we in the East see as "new" doctrines are confirmed by these visions. If it really was that easy or necessary, then why didn't the Virgin Mary appear at the 7 Councils to tell the Church what was true and what wasn't? Why such a need now? I realize the Catholics have an answer for that (and I've heard several over the years) but I just don't accept those explanations.

With that said, I personally do believe that some of the Western Apparitions of the Theotokos are indeed legit, I'm just not sure that the Church's interpretation of them is correct.

with that said I know nothing about Guadaloupe and have found this thread quite interesting.

Any Orthodox "apparitions" of Our Lady (i.e. Pokrov/Skepe) have the Theotokos appearing as she has always been recognized; not as a Native American or any other form. She has appeared as a Jewish woman dressed in the manner that she dressed in 1st Century Israel.

I'n my experience very few Orthodox Icons portray Mary as a 1st century Jewish peasant girl/woman. Which icons are you referring to? Most Icons I've seen show here as a Greek looking woman with blue and red robes. (I don't think Mary wore blue and red robes in 1st century Palestine). With that said, most of our saints' Icons aren't historically accurate either. Holy Transfiguration Monastery has an Icon of St. Patrick of Ireland, except he looks exactly like a modern day Greek monk on Mt. Athos, not an ancient Celt. (complete with a long grey beard, (very much like a St. Nektarios actually. ) The only way this icon says "St. Patrick" is that he's dressed in green. No where in the Iconographic tradition of the historical Church is Patrick portrayed with a long grey beard like an Eastern monk, but this Icons does. Yet there are Orthodox Icons that portray him in line with the historical tradition of what he looked like, (even if he really didn't look like that, there is a tradition that goes back close to his time) and he's immediately recognizable as St. Patrick.

The same is true of many, if not most of our saints' iconography. Plenty of Russian Icons show Greek saints looking a bit too Russian, and vice versa. And almost no Icons show any Jewish saints looking as though they were in any way Jewish. It's true the West took this modification even further, but have you ever seen an Icon of Jesus with a beard, SHORT hair, (the long haired Jesus is up for question) prayer shawl and phylactery? lol! me either! :-) But it's likely He at least a a few times looked like that. The Sinai Icon of Christ is the most "Jewish" one I've seen and even it is already tending towards a greekification in some respects. But does it matter? Christ came to ALL of humanity, and early Christian icons portrayed him as a beardless Roman youth. Although I guess an argument could be made that Christ, being our Salvation "could" be portrayed as any ethnic identity, (which I would agree with since he's been portrayed as a Greek, Russian, Scandinavian etc all in Orthodox Iconography over the centuries, why stop with European descent?) it's harder to say that of the saints. if a saint was historically Jewish, then they should look Jewish, or Irish or English etc...except this is not the case in Orthodoxy. So I don't see how we can challenge Rome on this issue when WE don't even follow what we're preaching.

Someone else mentioned the Icons of the Father God, which is a totally different issue as Councils and Canons have forbidden that, so we KNOW what is right and wrong....but the "ethnicity" of a saint, while I would agree, should be historically accurate, is not consistent within Orthodoxy and so I have a hard time telling Catholics they're doing it wrong. Because if they are, then we are too.

My Church has a Pantocrator that looks VERY Greek, and the old one He looked VERY Scandinavian. But when we switched I said "well He at least looks more Jewish than the old one, at least this time He's medditaranean!"

That's the biggest issue I have, that what we in the East see as "new" doctrines are confirmed by these visions. If it really was that easy or necessary, then why didn't the Virgin Mary appear at the 7 Councils to tell the Church what was true and what wasn't? Why such a need now? I realize the Catholics have an answer for that (and I've heard several over the years) but I just don't accept those explanations.

Which ones are you thinking about? The only one that could be said to "confirm" any post-schism doctrine (as far as I know) is Our Lady of Lourdes who said, almost in passing, "I am the Immaculate Conception". But, that still was far from the primary message of Lourdes.

Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

With that said, I personally do believe that some of the Western Apparitions of the Theotokos are indeed legit, I'm just not sure that the Church's interpretation of them is correct.

However, we are also taught to be wary of apparitions and "miracles". They do not all come from God, but, may be meant to mislead us.

That's why the Orthodox Church prefers to "negate" a miracle, rather than erroneously accept it and get misled.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

E. Michael Jones reports that Rome is finally cracking down on Medjugorje. Why? Benedict XVI is now pope and he never believed. There's some good stuff in there about the historical amnesia practiced by the local Franciscans re: WWII.

Uncanonical, yes, but if there's anything worth "baptizing" into the Church for missionary purposes, this would be it. Seriously, if Orthodox faithful in Mexico want to make any inroads, La Virgen has to be recognized, period.

I think this comment bothers me the most of any on this thread, David.

It seems to me that any endeavor based on a lie is doomed to failure, especially when it concerns matters of faith. Trying to bring Mexico to the true faith by tolerating or encouraging the cult of the "Virgin" of Guadalupe would be ultimately self-defeating. If it were successful, they would be "converted"... but to what? A syncretic pidgin kind of religion, based on Orthodoxy but adulterated with so many impurities as to make it unrecognizable? The goal must be to enlighten the people of Mexico (and all nations), not secure a nominal allegiance to Orthodoxy while tolerating aberrations that detract from the faith. The "Virgin," and the false miracles and legend surrounding it, cannot be a part of bringing Mexico to Orthodoxy.

« Last Edit: August 24, 2009, 04:44:47 PM by Orual »

Logged

He spoke it as kindly and heartily as could be; as if a man dashed a gallon of cold water in your broth and never doubted you'd like it all the better.

Don't the mexicans, mix there pagan Goddess worship with the Vigin Mary or they see no difference , Like in Haiti Where Voodu is mixed with catholic saints ..Catholics did a great Job there converting ...Stop Chasing after These new Questionable apparitions That Bring strange Revalation and you interduce them in your Faith belief ,,How is orthodoxy ever going to unite with catholicisim with all this strange doctrine Thats become part of your faith even promoted by your popes ...

You really have drifted far from orthodoxy I pray we never unite ,until The roman church Cleans its house and throws all these new revelation into the dust bin,,and returns back to the ancient faith once delived unto salvation...God save us all...

Wow. You think this is just something mexicans do? Yeah, you are right. We all just mix marry with goddess. NOT!!! What nonsense!!! What racism!There may be a very small minority of Latinos who do this but the Vast majority of hispanics/latinos worship only the undivided Trinity.

The "Virgin," and the false miracles and legend surrounding it, cannot be a part of bringing Mexico to Orthodoxy.

But this sentiment can only be built on a foundation of belief that the Guadalupe Apparition of the Virgin and all the miracles surrounding it are false, maybe even demonic. How can you say this with any authority? Because it happened outside the Orthodox Church? Yes, we alone proclaim the fullness of truth without error, but does that mean that we hold a monopoly on Truth? Cannot Christ and His holy Mother work outside the boundaries of the Orthodox Church to bring salvation even to those outside our walls?

That's the biggest issue I have, that what we in the East see as "new" doctrines are confirmed by these visions. If it really was that easy or necessary, then why didn't the Virgin Mary appear at the 7 Councils to tell the Church what was true and what wasn't? Why such a need now? I realize the Catholics have an answer for that (and I've heard several over the years) but I just don't accept those explanations.

Which ones are you thinking about? The only one that could be said to "confirm" any post-schism doctrine (as far as I know) is Our Lady of Lourdes who said, almost in passing, "I am the Immaculate Conception". But, that still was far from the primary message of Lourdes.

Athanasios,

yes it was Lourdes I was thinking about. And my thoughts and words were not exactly what I meant, at least in retrospect. You're right, she did say "I am the Immaculate Conception" and like you I feel it was almost said in passing, not the main point by far of what was going on. (considering we call her All Immaculate, again I see no controversy between East and West, just the interpretation of those words)

However what I meant was, (and I think what some Orthodox object to, and the reason why many Orthodox write off these apparitions completely) is because some Catholic apologists or "super devout" Catholics (and yes we have "super devout" Orthodox too) portray it as some defining moment in Catholic theology/history. A way of "proving" us Orthodox are all heretical, wrong, disobedient to Rome, and in schism, after all Mary told us what the absolute truth of this DOGMA is, loud and clear and that should settle it. After all that's what Lourdes was all about, the IC. (or so they might say)

Now, I realize that's not really what happened at Lourdes, but it is how some Catholics portray/interprete the event. And then use it to as some "proof" Rome is right and the East has got it all wrong. (I had this debate once with a Catholic, who happened to be formerly Orthodox, so he probably had some bone to pick)

When I said I accept Lourdes personally he asked, "then why aren't you Catholic, after all, she PROVED we are the true Church"...(or something to that effect). I think in part, that's why some Orthodox outright reject these apparitions because some Catholic apologist internet hack, or someone they know uses it as a "proof", even though the Church itself doesn't use them as proofs of anything. And frankly we Orthodox don't take the time to go and look into these events for ourselves and so we just assume what some apologist says is true. But it's not always true sadly.

That's what I meant, not so much the events themselves I have a problem with (because as I said I have no problem accepting Lourdes and in fact would love to go there some day), I only reject a certain interpretation of that apparition which as you pointed out, has little to do with the IC to begin with.

Probably like the way most Catholics accept the Holy Fire, and yet don't simply assume that "proves" EOy is the "only true Church"

I just don't like miracles being used in such negative terms like "we're right, you're wrong". Miracles should help bring people to faith, strengthen faith that is weak, and in some cases heal people physically or spiritually, or in other cases may just reaffirm what someone believes already...in the end they should ultimately point people to CHRIST, but I think using them to prove East vs West arguments is NOT what the Blessed Mother had in mind at Lourdes, or in Egypt, or in Russia or anywhere else she might have appeared. Not that you were doing that, this is just a generalization and trying to put my post into a wider context.

With that said, I realize that was NOT the intent of this thread in the beginning (to prove EOy was "wrong") but rather to simply give encouragement and hope to people. So I'm not accusing anyone of that at all. Only trying to explain that I think that because a few Catholics use these apparitions in that manner (as Orthodox do with weeping icons, Holy Fire etc) is the reason so many Orthodox outright reject them as "pagan Goddesses" etc...(which I find odd considering Pagan Goddesses do not exist, according to St. Paul but what do I know? LOL!)

I just can't believe that the Blessed Theotokos would appear as a Indian Pagan Goddess or resembles one just to convert the Indians to Christianity..For our Holy Mother to deceive the Indians just to convert them just doesn't seem right to me...That's why i don't believe in that apparition or in that image build on deceit...seem to me like satan's handy work...

The people torture them selfs by walking on there knees to that shrine some times for miles ..

Christ himself empowered the apostles to go out and preach and convert the people in the world ....Im sure he would of mentioned that he would be sending his Holy Mother in the future masquerading as a pagan goddess to convert by deception... Oh wait he did warn us about satans deceptions...

St. Paul said the law is written on our hearts, even the hearts of pagans. So is it possible the Theotokos really did appear in Mexico to push the people in the right direction, because they had gotten so close on their own volition?

To me this seems very similar to the situation in Athens with the statue "TO AN UNKNOWN GOD".

I believe people must be naturally wired for Christianity, and that explains why so many pagan religions have aspects that match Christianity, because people are reaching out for our faith. In the absence of the fullness we know, they do the best they can and make it up on their own. Some get closer than others. Is this a reasonable belief?

I realize it spurred a growth of Catholicism and not Orthodoxy, and maybe I still have some Protestant Christian-universalism I have to work out of me, but it just doesn't seem like the incarnate evil that some are making it into. MAybe I'm way off base. I am open to correction.

It wasn't a statue but a altar, to the unknown God ,and it didn't speak,but the Blessed St. Paul did as he was sent into the world by Christ Our Lord ,to do what he was ordained to do and Guided in the power of the Holy Spirit....Amen Amen

^Interesting. Thanks for taking the trouble to follow this up griego catolico. Coming from Australia, I'm curious though why an image of OL of Guadalupe would protect church property from gangs while another Icon of the theotokos or simply the Cross would not.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

^Interesting. Thanks for taking the trouble to follow this up griego catolico. Coming from Australia, I'm curious though why an image of OL of Guadalupe would protect church property from gangs while another Icon of the theotokos or simply the Cross would not.

It goes to show just how powerful the image of OLoG is to Hispanic culture. If this particular church is in an area where Hispanic gangs are the norm, it is very probable that the respect the gang members have for this image would lead them to not vandalize or otherwise bother the church or its members. I really, truly think that far too many people simply do not understand how powerful this image is to Hispanics in general and to Mexicans in particular.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

^Interesting. Thanks for taking the trouble to follow this up griego catolico. Coming from Australia, I'm curious though why an image of OL of Guadalupe would protect church property from gangs while another Icon of the theotokos or simply the Cross would not.

It goes to show just how powerful the image of OLoG is to Hispanic culture. If this particular church is in an area where Hispanic gangs are the norm, it is very probable that the respect the gang members have for this image would lead them to not vandalize or otherwise bother the church or its members. I really, truly think that far too many people simply do not understand how powerful this image is to Hispanics in general and to Mexicans in particular.

Thanks Schultz. I guess, being such a powerful image in Mexican culture, the temptation to use it in Orthodox missionary work would be strong. Its a difficult balance to strike though, I think. Respect for a people's culture does not always mean that the fishers of men can use it as bait for their hooks. I think sometimes its more disrespectful to a people's culture to simply "use" aspects of it for an agenda.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

It would be hard to overstate it! And not just for Mexicans. The Holy See named her Patroness of the Americas, which means that the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe has the rank of solemnity throughout North and South America.

The Knights of Columbus have a great devotion to OLG, and our Supreme Knight, Card Anderson, has led the way in promoting devotion to her.

Hi, some comments are quite uncharitable and show a very poor knowledge of history.

Before the European landing in Mexico, there was no nation, there's no such a thing as an Indian or Aztec nation.

In the north of the country cannibalism and absolute barbarism prevailed, as well as nomadism. In the center it was a little bit better, we had city-states. Life was very primitive, in spite of the advanced astronomy and science, suffice it to say that the wheel hadn't been invented here.

The Indians were not a nation, they were a collection of nomads, tribes whose lifestyles were very cruel: children were sacrificed to demons, people were tortured to death to satisfy the needs of those false gods.

The fact that the Spanish came here was a blessing. They were cruel too, granted, but at least they preached a religion of love, the preached the word of God. The Indians had to be civilized, they weren't prepared for self rule, they were savages. The Spanish actually saved the lives of many and brought a Christian way of life (thigs were unfair here, poverty, lack of social equality, cruel punishments, inquisition: but it was like that everywhere in the world at that time).

The Hispanic founders of our country even gave us their blood for the foundation of a new nation and a new people. On the other side, for the average Anglo-Protestant conqueror in North America, materialism and economic development was their main intention, religion was a white issue and the vast majority of Indians were simply terminated.

The liberal and Communist historians, all imposed by the masonic lodges brought by Poinsett in the 1800's to destroy our Christian empire, created their own history and founded the ideology called "indigenism" which only divides the nation and insults all what is Christian.

I don't mean that the Spanish religious practices are holy, after all they do have the errors of Romanism, but we can't generalize. If there's false religious pity and unholy syncretism it isn't because of the Spanish. It's because the masonic and communist regimes expelled the Roman clergy, religion was no longer preached and "religious needs" could not be met, idolatry and paganism reappeared because faith was week and ignorance prevailed.

Our Lady of Guadalupe is revered by the Orthodox in Mexico, but we don't get involved in the issue of the apparitions. For both Orthodox and Catholics it's not obligatory to believe them. However, I do not trust who deny the apparitions, most of them are communist subjects (such as Guillermo Schulemburg, the former abbot of the RC Bassilica who was a puppet of the Mexican PRI government and an agent of the East German State).

I don't see any serious reason to say that "the image comes from the devil". This is absurd, some authors have analysed the meanings of each symbol in the image and I haven't seen any which could be seen as contradicting Orthodox doctrine.

This is a national symbol. It's a national symbol because it reconciled our Christian and Hispanic identity with our indigenous past and all what was positive in it. Only a Mexican can really understand this, so I am not against those who believe it's wrong to revere this icon. Is it our fault that Orthodoxy did not come first to our country?

It goes to show just how powerful the image of OLoG is to Hispanic culture. If this particular church is in an area where Hispanic gangs are the norm, it is very probable that the respect the gang members have for this image would lead them to not vandalize or otherwise bother the church or its members.

While I can now understand why the image of OLG was placed at an Orthodox church, I am relieved by the fact that the image has now been replaced with an Orthodox alternative.

In the city where I live, there is a truly beautiful Russian church built in traditional Novgorodian (11th-14thC) style. Green roof, blue cupola with gold stars, green belltower roof, gold crosses on the cupola, belltower, and the small gold onion dome over the apse above the altar. The walls, some 40 feet high, are painted white, as is the fence. An architectural and ecclesiastical gem. Yet, in the more than forty years since this church was built, and particularly in more recent years, according to the former warden of this church who is a very close friend of mine, and whose parents and grandparents helped build the church, there has been no instance of desecration or graffiti in all that time. Not one. Huge areas of lovely white walls for spraycan artists to do their stuff, yet it's been left well alone. I'm told it's because of the diligence of this church's patron saint and of the Mother of God. Sounds good enough to me!

It would be hard to overstate it! And not just for Mexicans. The Holy See named her Patroness of the Americas, which means that the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe has the rank of solemnity throughout North and South America.

The Knights of Columbus have a great devotion to OLG, and our Supreme Knight, Card Anderson, has led the way in promoting devotion to her.

This is a national symbol. It's a national symbol because it reconciled our Christian and Hispanic identity with our indigenous past and all what was positive in it. Only a Mexican can really understand this, so I am not against those who believe it's wrong to revere this icon. Is it our fault that Orthodoxy did not come first to our country?

Thank you for your post Mexican, and I realize I have only extracted a small portion of it here.Given that the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is such an important image to Mexican cultural identity, I wonder how you feel about what I said in reply #159. As a Mexican, would you have felt insulted or patronized if Orthodox Missionaries had used the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Icons as a way of evangelizing Mexico? I think it is different if the Icon version comes from Mexican Orthodox Christians themselves rather than being used as a "brand name" by non-Mexican missionaries. Am I way off with this?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

This is a national symbol. It's a national symbol because it reconciled our Christian and Hispanic identity with our indigenous past and all what was positive in it. Only a Mexican can really understand this, so I am not against those who believe it's wrong to revere this icon. Is it our fault that Orthodoxy did not come first to our country?

Thank you for your post Mexican, and I realize I have only extracted a small portion of it here.Given that the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is such an important image to Mexican cultural identity, I wonder how you feel about what I said in reply #159. As a Mexican, would you have felt insulted or patronized if Orthodox Missionaries had used the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Icons as a way of evangelizing Mexico? I think it is different if the Icon version comes from Mexican Orthodox Christians themselves rather than being used as a "brand name" by non-Mexican missionaries. Am I way off with this?

As a hispanic Christain from New Mexico, the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is of extreme importance. I think its great that we choose to use this image to venerate our Lady. However, if some non-Catholic Group came into my area of the country and started to use the image as a way to convert Catholics to their religion, I would be furious. You see this kind of behavior in south america where protestant Churches will have statues of Mary (even though they don't venerate her) in order to give their churches a more Catholic feel so that it is easier to steel sheep from the Catholic Church.

This is a national symbol. It's a national symbol because it reconciled our Christian and Hispanic identity with our indigenous past and all what was positive in it. Only a Mexican can really understand this, so I am not against those who believe it's wrong to revere this icon. Is it our fault that Orthodoxy did not come first to our country?

Thank you for your post Mexican, and I realize I have only extracted a small portion of it here.Given that the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is such an important image to Mexican cultural identity, I wonder how you feel about what I said in reply #159. As a Mexican, would you have felt insulted or patronized if Orthodox Missionaries had used the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Icons as a way of evangelizing Mexico? I think it is different if the Icon version comes from Mexican Orthodox Christians themselves rather than being used as a "brand name" by non-Mexican missionaries. Am I way off with this?

As a hispanic Christain from New Mexico, the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is of extreme importance. I think its great that we choose to use this image to venerate our Lady. However, if some non-Catholic Group came into my area of the country and started to use the image as a way to convert Catholics to their religion, I would be furious. You see this kind of behavior in south america where protestant Churches will have statues of Mary (even though they don't venerate her) in order to give their churches a more Catholic feel so that it is easier to steel sheep from the Catholic Church.

Is your objection to the Orthodox making Icons of OL of Guadalupe because it is a Symbol of Roman Catholicism?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

This is a national symbol. It's a national symbol because it reconciled our Christian and Hispanic identity with our indigenous past and all what was positive in it. Only a Mexican can really understand this, so I am not against those who believe it's wrong to revere this icon. Is it our fault that Orthodoxy did not come first to our country?

Thank you for your post Mexican, and I realize I have only extracted a small portion of it here.Given that the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is such an important image to Mexican cultural identity, I wonder how you feel about what I said in reply #159. As a Mexican, would you have felt insulted or patronized if Orthodox Missionaries had used the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Icons as a way of evangelizing Mexico? I think it is different if the Icon version comes from Mexican Orthodox Christians themselves rather than being used as a "brand name" by non-Mexican missionaries. Am I way off with this?

As a hispanic Christain from New Mexico, the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is of extreme importance. I think its great that we choose to use this image to venerate our Lady. However, if some non-Catholic Group came into my area of the country and started to use the image as a way to convert Catholics to their religion, I would be furious. You see this kind of behavior in south america where protestant Churches will have statues of Mary (even though they don't venerate her) in order to give their churches a more Catholic feel so that it is easier to steel sheep from the Catholic Church.

Is your objection to the Orthodox making Icons of OL of Guadalupe because it is a Symbol of Roman Catholicism?

It depends on how it would be used I suppose. If it were used to try and take Catholics out of the Church then it would bother me. However, The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church share so much in common when it comes to the veneration of Our Lady that in a sense I would be pleased to see EOs honoring Our Lady of Guadalupe. Its kind of a complicated situation.

I don't see any problem with having the painting in the Monastery of St. Anthony in Mexico. I don't think it has to be removed. I don't see the Russian Church running to remove all the heretical paintings from Christ the Savior Cathedral or any other church for that matter which have absolutely no Orthodox origin same with some paintings I've seen in Serbia also. And their are a ton of churches that have Davinci's Last Supper in it; where is that in Orthodox tradition? Our Lady of Guadalupe is a symbol for the Mexican people and if they want to keep it then fine if it brings them closer to God.

Excellent post Andrew. Yes, the Icon of OLofG is in the main Orthodox Cathedral in Mexico City and I believe in other Orthodox churches in Mexico as well. If this brings one closer to God how can this be wrong???

If you read the link I posted earlier, the stories on the supernatural origins of the painting appeared many years after the introduction of the image. Looked at it from that point of view, it's a pious image that took on an "apparitional" meaning after the fact. The same can be said for the origins of the Dominican rosary. A pious custom that became blessed, I think decades, after the fact, with a story ascribed to St. Dominic. The online 1913 Catholic encyclopedia actually has very good (non-supernatural) descriptions of a great many Catholic customs, largely from Jesuit Herbert Thurston. Much of this phenomenon is an expression of "popular catholicism" that later (theologically modified) was made acceptable practice for believers. The brown scapular is another pious devotion - the church had to invent an entire theology that said it was not, in fact, a "ticket to heaven" notwithstanding the legendary promise associated with it. The St. Benedict is another popular sacramental with legendary promises associated with it.

Having an Italian on the seat of Peter helped give an official imprimatur to a lot of Marian devotions which were popular in places like Italy, Spain or Poland.

Anyway, to get back to the main topic, I personally do not believe there is anything supernatural in character to the Guadalupe image. There's nothing wrong with it, but I don't believe there's a Juan Diego, any more than I subscribe to the legends associated with the origins of the rosary. The problem is that if you have sympathetic people in the higher ups of the church, it tends to push the skeptics to the side, which is why (for me) Juan Diego's canonization is problematic, because it canonizes the entire legend associated with the image.

So you believe then that all the Native Americans in Central and South America gave up their pagan faiths and their human sacrifices for the faith of the hated Spaniards, without it being a movement of the Holy Spirit? Interesting!

Saint Paul used a pagan temple to preach the Lord's word. Why can't the Holy Theotokos use elements of the indians' believes to preach her Son's word? I'm not saying the Virgin of the Guadalupe is or not real, as I don't think I can discern that. I'm saying that if a pagan group was moved to believe in the Holy Trinity, the devil couldn't have something to do with it....or at least his plan went very wrong.

Logged

Wilma (Nazarius)

"Humbleness is protection, patience is confirmation, love is defence. Where there is love, there is God, there is all the good…" St. Nazary of Valaam

I don't buy it ,,the Ascticism that the blessed saints practice isn't to appease an angry God Or Goddess but to disipline themselfs in taking control over their body that there spirit may rule it...

the mexicans and tourists that go there will punish them selfs silly ,by doing all kinds of sever torcher thinking there Pagan Goddess will grant there prayers and grant whatever their seeking by this abuse........

And you, of course, have the clairvoyance of an elder to know what is in the heart of "the mexicans and tourists that go there"? What proof do you have that they do these things out of a desire to "appeace an angry God Or Goddess" and not out of some sort of a desire to bring their bodies in line with the spirit, ala St. Paul?

Until you can present some proof of your accusations, you, my friend, are just bearing false witness...or maybe just baring your omnipresent anti-Catholic sentiments once again?

The people torture them selfs by walking on there knees to that shrine some times for miles ..

And Eastern Orthodoxy has never been known for any sort of above average asceticism.

Careful. Sounds like clairvoyance. Dabbling in stuff like this sounds troublesome to me. Nutty actually.

VikingLike living life at the top of a pole (our pole sitters, a.k.a. stylites) or kneeling on a rock for 1000 consecutive nights, even through the debilitating pain of injuries suffered during a vicious robbery that left him almost dead (St. Seraphim of Sarov). Yes, stashko, I think our own Tradition has examples of the extreme asceticism you just ridiculed.

I don't buy it ,,the Ascticism that the blessed saints practice isn't to appease an angry God Or Goddess but to disipline themselfs in taking control over their body that there spirit may rule it...

the mexicans and tourists that go there will punish them selfs silly ,by doing all kinds of sever torcher thinking there Pagan Goddess will grant there prayers and grant whatever their seeking by this abuse........

How do you know their motivations? Have you been blessed with the gift of telepathy?

No! ...

Second Sight though,,, this is what i call it, I can tell things like who will die also other things that my car was going to be hit i knew in what area and what part of the car was going to be damaged be fore it all happened... ...

The people torture them selfs by walking on there knees to that shrine some times for miles ..

And Eastern Orthodoxy has never been known for any sort of above average asceticism.

Careful. Sounds like clairvoyance. Dabbling in stuff like this sounds troublesome to me. Nutty actually.

VikingLike living life at the top of a pole (our pole sitters, a.k.a. stylites) or kneeling on a rock for 1000 consecutive nights, even through the debilitating pain of injuries suffered during a vicious robbery that left him almost dead (St. Seraphim of Sarov). Yes, stashko, I think our own Tradition has examples of the extreme asceticism you just ridiculed.

I don't buy it ,,the Ascticism that the blessed saints practice isn't to appease an angry God Or Goddess but to disipline themselfs in taking control over their body that there spirit may rule it...

the mexicans and tourists that go there will punish them selfs silly ,by doing all kinds of sever torcher thinking there Pagan Goddess will grant there prayers and grant whatever their seeking by this abuse........

How do you know their motivations? Have you been blessed with the gift of telepathy?

No! ...

Second Sight though,,, this is what i call it, I can tell things like who will die also other things that my car was going to be hit i knew in what area and what part of the car was going to be damaged be fore it all happened... ...

Meant to put this here. Careful. Sounds like clairvoyance. Dabbling in stuff like this sounds troublesome to me. Nutty actually.

Every Orthodox church, sadly, has images within it which are uncanonical. Your post simply proves that mistakes in what is hung or painted in Orthodox churches continue to be made. It bears repeating that the mere presence of such images in churches does not automatically mean they are suitable for veneration.

I've been under the impression that Christianity has always allowed cultures to retain traditions that are no against the Gospel. Was not Athanasius of Alexandria one of the first to truly use Hellenistic philosophy and rhetoric in his writings to DEFEND the faith? Just because something isn't born out of the Church doesn't mean it diminishes the Church. In fact, it often can enhance it. Obviously as a Catholic I think the imagine is born out of the Church, but I understand why Orthodox Christians would be guarded against such an imagine being used for worship and prayer. The real question that needs to be asked is "Does this image detract or enhance the Gospel?" If I were looking at this form an Orthodox perspective I think it has more potential to enhance the Gospel as long it is the image alone and not the apparition. In other words, the cultural aspect of the image would be useful but not the spiritual aspect of the image.

Having said that, I am a Catholic and I cherish and adore both the Image and the message.